The Two Sides of the American Dream

            The American Dream is something so often referenced throughout America in all aspects of life. Television satirizes it, advertisements boast to have achieved it, and some people personify it. In its simplest form, the dream is this: work hard, achieve goals. This is something most Americans can agree on. When Walter R. Fisher in his speech “Reaffirmation and Subversion of the American Dream” defines the dream as two separate definitions, I’ll admit, I was a little thrown off at first.

            Fisher separates the American Dream into two dreams, or myths: materialistic and moralistic. The materialistic side represents the rags to riches story of the American Dream, the idea that if you begin as a lower-class American you can work your way up to anything. The moralistic side represents the brotherhood of the American Dream, that everyone is equal and should be treated as so.

In 1972, the election presented two candidates that represented each side of this myth, each qualified for the job and each on opposite standpoints regarding the American Dream. In Fisher’s eyes, each person contains both materialistic and moralistic ideals, but whichever one dominates is the candidate they voted for in the election. Therefore, when “one votes for himself in a presidential election, one also votes against himself” (116). So, while you voted for the candidate that contained more of your ideals, the ideals you held less dear to you were being destroyed and voted against. This sense of juxtaposition within oneself is not something I had considered when voting for anything in my years past. Yes, I have been indecisive about things and made bad decisions, but I never considered to be voting against the side I did not choose, instead always voting for what I believed would be better in the end.

Fisher’s view of the American Dream broadened my mind to what it has transformed into today. The materialistic and moralistic sides of the dream are still relevant, although perhaps less recognizable as they once were. Take the last election, for example. Was one candidate more materialistic and one more moralistic? Perhaps. But rather than recognizing the values of the American Dream within each candidate, the opposing views were subverted. Rather than reaffirming ones own personal ideas, each candidate attacked those of the other. This is mirrored in the 1972 election with Nixon and McGovern. Sadly, 45 years later, not much changed between Trump and Clinton.

The two sides Fisher separates the American Dream into certainly defines it as many Americans categorize it to be. In todays world, the moralistic side, one where brotherhood is valued and equality for all is promised, needs a little work. Throughout the past few decades we have seen America transform itself a great deal through multiple protests for different ideas. Some would argue that this is what America is all about, individuals standing up for what they believe in, and others would disagree. Either way, America provides a land of opportunity for both materialistic and moralistic people to coexist. Prior to reading this article, I had always thought the American Dream to have one, flexible, definition with a general idea that was molded differently by everyone. I still hold this idea, however now I see it as one definition with two sides, materialistic and moralistic, and individuals choose which side to prefer.